DOCSLIB.ORG

2 Los Alamos National Laboratory During the Cold War, in the 1950S and ’60S, the Fear of Nuclear War Drove Thousands of U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2 Los Alamos National Laboratory During the Cold War, in the 1950S and ’60S, the Fear of Nuclear War Drove Thousands of U.S 2 Los Alamos National Laboratory During the Cold War, in the 1950s and ’60s, the fear of nuclear war drove thousands of U.S. families to provide themselves with costly bomb shelters (also called fallout shelters), either converting their basements or installing prefabricated shelters several feet underground in their backyards. The shelters were stocked with essential supplies, and even some amenities, against the possibility of the families’ having to shelter for many days or weeks. (Photo: Open Source) RETHINKING THE UNTHINKABLE The Cold War began in 1945 with the use of nuclear weapons to end World War II and officially ended in December 1989 with a joint declaration in Malta by Presidents George H. W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev. In retrospect, excepting the regional wars in places like Korea and Vietnam, this 44-year period was remarkably stable. While many factors contributed to this stability, the contribution of nuclear weapons is undeniable. Nowhere is this stability more obvious than in Europe. During the 3.5 centuries before 1945, a major war had erupted in Europe every 11.9 years, and each lasted an average of 6.6 years. As the weapons for conventional war improved, each new war was more vicious and cost more in human lives than the previous one. Yet for over 40 years following World War II, opposing U.S. and Soviet forces were poised for war in Europe but remained fixed in place. Why? Amassing adequate conventional forces in Western Europe to counter Soviet forces had been politically, economically, and geographically impossible. The peak size of the U.S. Army during the Cold War was 18 divisions. The Soviets had approximately 200 divisions. Western Europe could not have been protected from Soviet aggression without the balance of power brought by the omnipresent American nuclear weapons. The prospect that any untoward movement to the east or to the west would precipitate the nuclear annihilation of nations, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, resulted in the stalemate created by nuclear weapons. The certainty of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) reversed that centuries-old pattern of major European warfare and carnage. Europe has not had a major war for 69 years. So while a national security strategy based on MAD might not be Nirvana, history shows that as a deterrent, it worked. How Deterrence Worked During the Cold War, much was written on specific factors necessary to achieve deterrence. These requisite factors always included the following: (1) maintaining an acceptable degree of strategic parity between the states involved, (2) having confidence that weapons involved in deterrence would function as designed if called upon to do so, (3) avoiding significant surprises regarding advancements in the nuclear capabilities of foreign nations, and (4) ensuring that intelligence for the U.S. decision makers would be of the highest caliber possible. Prompt and accurate detection of foreign launch preparations and/or actual launches was an important aspect of this latter paradigm. Distinguishing Soviet exercises from actual preparations for a preemptive attack was equally important. Let us examine each of these in turn. National Security Science December 2014 3 Cold War’s Military Standoff NATO vs. Warsaw Pact Nuclear weapons work without being detonated. They kept the Warsaw Pact’s armies at bay for almost 50 years. Maintaining Parity This fact, and not concern over introducing radioisotopes Maintaining the evolving strategic parity with the Soviet into the environment, may well have constituted the most Union resulted in the nuclear arms race. Ultimately, parity compelling impetus for underground testing. was arguably a non sequitur in that both the United States In any case, when the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty moved and the Soviet Union had more than sufficient numbers and all nuclear weapons testing underground, its ratification by varieties of nuclear warheads and delivery systems to destroy the U.S. Senate was accompanied by robust safeguards that the other, even if a substantial fraction of these nuclear required the following: the maintenance of modern nuclear weapons had been destroyed in a preemptive attack. weapons laboratories and associated research; the establish- ment of the National Nuclear Test Readiness Program to enable a return to atmospheric testing if necessary for Confidence That Your Weapons Will Work “supreme national interests;”1 an active program to improve Confidence on both sides that their respective nuclear methods to detect, characterize, and monitor foreign nuclear weapons would function properly was achieved through 1 A proviso of the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty authorized a resumption of U.S. well-funded nuclear weapons physics and engineering atmospheric nuclear testing if the safety or reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile laboratories—staffed with scientists and engineers of could not be assured, with high confidence, without testing. The proviso grew out of the 1961 surprise Soviet withdrawal from the U.S.–Soviet mutual testing moratorium. From the highest caliber—and through well-planned nuclear September through December, the Soviets conducted 56 tests, including the October weapons testing programs. These tests were originally in the test of the world’s largest-ever (more than 50 megatons) nuclear weapon, “Tsar Bomba.” They conducted more than 70 additional tests in 1962. The United States rushed to atmosphere and later underground. Ironically, radioactive reestablish its own tests, but took until April 1962 to conduct its first one. The treaty’s debris from the atmospheric tests provided the other party proviso is meant to ensure that the United States retains its nuclear testing capability with significant insights into the testing party’s technology. even during test moratoriums like the current one. 4 Los Alamos National Laboratory detonations; and a robust nuclear weapons intelligence those at the nuclear weapons laboratories, as analysts. The program. In the United States, similar safeguards were again value of using U.S. experts in nuclear weapons to review the appended to both the 1974 Threshold Test Ban Treaty and data on foreign nuclear weapons activities is obvious. the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). (The The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) established a Field provisions of the CTBT are de facto in effect. The treaty was Intelligence Element (FIE) at Lawrence Livermore National rejected by the U.S. Senate in 1999 by a vote of 51­­ to 48.) Laboratory, and the Defense Intelligence Agency formed FIEs at both Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories. No Big Surprises, Please! In 1976 George H. W. Bush Sr., then the director of the CIA, exempted the Department of Energy’s (DOE) FIEs from During the Cold War, avoiding being surprised by some “contractor” status, an action that provided these civilian FIEs advancement in the nuclear capability of a foreign nation with exceptional access to intelligence information. was considered essential, and this fact drove the development and use of many highly advanced technologies to gather information of the highest quality. This strategy gave rise How Deterrence Is Working Today: to many critical innovations, including the Atomic Energy Cold War Lessons Forgotten in a Hot, New World Detection System, which looked for nuclear weapon With the end of the Cold War, the world political landscape detonations; worldwide signal intelligence, including has become much more convoluted and unpredictable and communications intelligence and electronic intelligence; dangerous. Nowhere is this change more obvious than in reconnaissance systems, including the U-2 spy planes and the growing animus toward the United States as the world’s Corona photographic satellites; and missile-launch detection chief superpower and its major cultural bully. A concomitant systems. Of course, human-gathered intelligence was surge has also arisen in reemerging historical conflicts, critical too, and much of what are viewed as “classical” regional “warlordism,” lethal violence by nonstate actors, and espionage activities focused on gathering intelligence on international competition for resources, especially energy. nuclear capabilities. Against this new backdrop, terrorists with the declared goal of acquiring nuclear weapons are being supported directly Intelligence Analyses for Making Decisions by nations actively pursuing such capabilities themselves in direct violation of international agreements, for example, Capabilities dedicated to analyzing this type of information Hezbollah receiving support from Iran. Other jihadist for the government’s decision makers were well-funded and terrorists, some of them emboldened by “fatwas,” are looking diversified and included using nuclear scientists, particularly for opportunities to acquire nuclear weapon materials directly through theft or diversion. 25,000,000 20,000,000 1945: Invention of nuclear weapons 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 Gulf War War of 1812 World War I Korean War RevolutionaryWar U.S. Civil War World War II Vietnam War War on Terror Estimated military deaths from wars before and after MAD. In addition, there were up to 55 million civilian deaths during World War II. Europe has not had a major war for 69 years. National Security Science December 2014 5 There is a reemergence of confrontational strategies by Russia towards the United States. For example, during major strategic exercises in 2013, the Russians flew two Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers to Venezuela. In
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Military Assessment of Nuclear Deterrence Requirements Committee
    i [H.A.S.C. No. 115–11] MILITARY ASSESSMENT OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE REQUIREMENTS COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION HEARING HELD MARCH 8, 2017 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 24–683 WASHINGTON : 2017 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS WILLIAM M. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina ADAM SMITH, Washington JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey SUSAN A. DAVIS, California ROB BISHOP, Utah JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JIM COOPER, Tennessee TRENT FRANKS, Arizona MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JOHN GARAMENDI, California ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia JACKIE SPEIER, California DUNCAN HUNTER, California MARC A. VEASEY, Texas MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri BETO O’ROURKE, Texas AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey MO BROOKS, Alabama RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona PAUL COOK, California SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio CAROL SHEA–PORTER, New Hampshire BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama JACKY ROSEN, Nevada SAM GRAVES, Missouri A. DONALD MCEACHIN, Virginia ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland STEPHEN KNIGHT, California STEPHANIE N.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of State Ejournal 15 (February 2010)
    The Bureau of International Information Programs of the U.S. Department of State publishes a monthly electronic journal under the eJournal USA logo. These journals U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE / FEBRuaRY 2010 examine major issues facing the United States and the VOLUME 15 / NUMBER 2 international community, as well as U.S. society, values, http://www.america.gov/publications/ejournalusa.html thought, and institutions. International Information Programs: One new journal is published monthly in English and is Coordinator Daniel Sreebny followed by versions in French, Portuguese, Russian, and Executive Editor Jonathan Margolis Spanish. Selected editions also appear in Arabic, Chinese, Creative Director Michael Jay Friedman and Persian. Each journal is catalogued by volume and number. Editor-in-Chief Richard W. Huckaby Managing Editor Bruce Odessey The opinions expressed in the journals do not necessarily Production Manager/Web Producer Janine Perry reflect the views or policies of the U.S. government. The Graphic Designer Sylvia Scott U.S. Department of State assumes no responsibility for the content and continued accessibility of Internet sites Copy Editor Rosalie Targonski to which the journals link; such responsibility resides Photo Editor Maggie Sliker solely with the publishers of those sites. Journal articles, Cover Designer Diane Woolverton photographs, and illustrations may be reproduced and Graph Designers Vincent Hughes translated outside the United States unless they carry Reference Specialist Martin Manning explicit copyright restrictions, in which case permission must be sought from the copyright holders noted in the journal. Front Cover: © Getty Images The Bureau of International Information Programs maintains current and back issues in several electronic formats at http://www.america.gov/publications/ejournalusa.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit-V Topic-2 Strategy of Deterrence
    UNIT-V TOPIC-1 NUCLEAR ERA IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON STRATEGY A strategic nuclear weapon refers to a nuclear weapon that is designed to be used on targets often in settled territory far from the battlefield as part of a strategic plan, such as military bases,military command centers, arms industries, transportation, economic, and energy infrastructure, and heavily populated areas such as cities and towns, which often contain such targets.It is in contrast to a tactical nuclear weapon, which is designed for use in battle as part of an attack with and often near friendly conventional forces, possibly on contested friendly territory. How have nuclear weapons changed world politics? The nuclear powers gained the ability to use “threat of n-weapons” for securing their national interests in international relations. ... During 1945-90 the nuclear weapons influenced the politics of cold war. These kept the securing of disarmament and arms control highly complex and problematic and un-successful exercise. In some ways, nuclear weapons merely made effective the earlier promise of air power—overwhelming violence delivered at an opponent’s cities, bypassing its military forces. Nuclear weapons were different, however, in their speed, their destructiveness, and the apparent absence of countervailing measures. Furthermore, the expense and high technology of nuclear weapons suddenly created two classes of powers in the world: those who wielded these new tools of war and those who did not. In the ensuing decades, nuclear facts and nuclear strategy had a peculiarly uneasy coexistence. Many of the realities of nuclear weapons—how many were in each arsenal, the precise means for their delivery, the reliability of the devices themselves and of the planes, missiles, and crews that had to deliver them—were obscure.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapons Targeting Process
    NW ear Weapons Tare ‘eting Proeess unitstatesed General Accounting Office GAO Wtihington, D.C. 20648 National Security and International Affairs Division B-244436 September 27,199l The Honorable John McCain United States Senate The Honorable John R. Kasich House of Representatives This is the unclassified version of the classified fact sheet we provided you in August 1991. This responds to your request for an unclassified description of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) process for formulating its strategic nuclear weapons targeting policy and translating that policy into a nuclear war plan -the Single Integrated Operational Plan (sop). Our description includes information on (1) the relationship between the strategic nuclear targeting process and the determination of require- ments for nuclear weapons and related delivery systems, (2) the level of civilian oversight, and (3) the categories and types of targets. These strategic nuclear weapons systems, commonly known as the triad, include land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine- launched ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers armed with nuclear bombs and missiles. Results in Brief The strategic nuclear weapons targeting process consists of four steps: (1) Presidential direction for the employment of nuclear weapons is pro- vided to the Secretary of Defense through a National Security Decision Directive or Memorandum, which defines national security objectives and sets policy guidance concerning employment of U.S. nuclear weapons. (2) The Secretary of Defense issues the Policy Guidance for the Employ- l ment of Nuclear Weapons, which establishes the planning assumptions, attack options, and targeting objectives. (3) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff develops more detailed guidance for preparation of the SIOP based on guidance from the Presi- dent and Secretary of Defense.
    [Show full text]
  • A National Pragmatic Safety Limit for Nuclear Weapon Quantities Joshua Pearce, David Denkenberger
    A National Pragmatic Safety Limit for Nuclear Weapon Quantities Joshua Pearce, David Denkenberger To cite this version: Joshua Pearce, David Denkenberger. A National Pragmatic Safety Limit for Nuclear Weapon Quan- tities. Drug Safety, Springer Verlag, 2018, 4 (2), pp.25. 10.3390/safety4020025. hal-02111370 HAL Id: hal-02111370 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02111370 Submitted on 26 Apr 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License safety Article A National Pragmatic Safety Limit for Nuclear Weapon Quantities Joshua M. Pearce 1,2,3,* ID and David C. Denkenberger 4,5 1 Department of Electronics and Nanoengineering, School of Electrical Engineering, Aalto University, FI-00076 Espoo, Finland 2 Department of Materials Science & Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931-1295, USA 3 Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931-1295, USA 4 Tennessee State University, 3500 John A Merritt Boulevard Nashville, Nashville, TN 37209, USA; [email protected] 5 Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED), 23532 Calabasas Road, Suite A, Calabasas, CA 91302, USA * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: 906-487-1466 Received: 15 February 2018; Accepted: 6 June 2018; Published: 14 June 2018 Abstract: This study determines the nuclear pragmatic limit where the direct physical negative consequences of nuclear weapons use are counter to national interests, by assuming all unknowns are conservatively optimistic.
    [Show full text]
  • Suomalaisian__K__Kulmia Netti.Pdf
    Maanpuolustuskorkeakoulu Strategian laitos Sivonen (toim.) Sivonen Suomalaisia näkökulmia Suomalaisia näkökulmia strategian tutkimukseen strategian tutkimukseen Strategian tutkimus on osa sotatieteellistä, mutta myös kansainvälisen Toimittanut: Pekka Sivonen strate politiikan tutkimuksen tiedeyhteisöä. Strategian tutkimuksen ja Suomalaisia näkökulmia opetuksen ainoa yliopistollinen laitos maassamme on puolustusvoimiin Julkaisusarja 1 | Strategian tutkimuksia No 33 kuuluvan Maanpuolustuskorkeakoulun Strategian laitos. Vuonna 2015 se yhdistetään Maanpuolustuskorkeakoulun Taktiikan ja Sota- gi historian laitosten kanssa Sotataidon laitokseksi, jonka puitteissa an tutkimukseen strategia jatkaa itsenäisenä tieteenalana ja oppiaineena. Käsillä oleva kokoomateos on tarkoitettu strategian alan perus- oppikirjaksi, mutta samalla se on suunnattu myös yleisesti kan- sainvälisestä turvallisuudesta ja sen tutkimuksesta kiinnostuneelle lukijakunnalle. Teos esittelee sekä perinteisistä lähtökohdista nousevia että uudempiin virtauksiin kiinnittyviä lähestymistapoja strategian tutkimukseen. Teoksen alkupuolella painottuvat tutkimuksen teoreettis-metodologiset kysymykset, jälkipuolella puolestaan tutkimuksen empiiriset kohdealueet. Julkaisusarja 1 | No 33, 2013 Maanpuolustuskorkeakoulu Tel. +358 299 530632 ISBN 978-951-25-2495-2 Strategian laitos Fax. +358 299 530634 ISBN 978-951-25-2496-9 (PDF) PL 266, 00171 Helsinki strategianlaitos@mil.fi ISSN 1236-4959 Suomi, Finland www.mpkk.fi MAANPUOLUSTUSKORKEAKOULU STRATEGIAN LAITOS JULKAISUSARJA 1: STRATEGIAN TUTKIMUKSIA
    [Show full text]
  • United States Tactical Nuclear Doctrine: Developing a Capability
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1979 United States tactical nuclear doctrine: Developing a capability Christopher Michael Cooke College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the International Relations Commons, and the Military and Veterans Studies Commons Recommended Citation Cooke, Christopher Michael, "United States tactical nuclear doctrine: Developing a capability" (1979). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539625067. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-zset-zj41 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. United States Tactical Nuclear ii Doctrines Developing A Capability A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Government The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillmait Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Christopher Cooke 1979 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Christopher Cooke Approved, August 1979 ar Magaret Hamilton ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to Professor Alan J. Ward, under whose guidance this study was conducted, for his very helpful advice and, especially, for his considerable editorial skill. The author is also indebted to Professors Margaret Hamilton and George Grayson for their careful reading and criticism of the manuscript. LIST OF TABLES Figure Page A.
    [Show full text]
  • Report- Non Strategic Nuclear Weapons
    Federation of American Scientists Special Report No 3 May 2012 Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons By HANS M. KRISTENSEN 1 Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons May 2012 Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons By HANS M. KRISTENSEN Federation of American Scientists www.FAS.org 2 Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons May 2012 Acknowledgments e following people provided valuable input and edits: Katie Colten, Mary-Kate Cunningham, Robert Nurick, Stephen Pifer, Nathan Pollard, and other reviewers who wish to remain anonymous. is report was made possible by generous support from the Ploughshares Fund. Analysis of satellite imagery was done with support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Image: personnel of the 31st Fighter Wing at Aviano Air Base in Italy load a B61 nuclear bomb trainer onto a F-16 fighter-bomber (Image: U.S. Air Force). 3 Federation of American Scientists www.FAS.org Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons May 2012 About FAS Founded in 1945 by many of the scientists who built the first atomic bombs, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is devoted to the belief that scientists, engineers, and other technically trained people have the ethical obligation to ensure that the technological fruits of their intellect and labor are applied to the benefit of humankind. e founding mission was to prevent nuclear war. While nuclear security remains a major objective of FAS today, the organization has expanded its critical work to issues at the intersection of science and security. FAS publications are produced to increase the understanding of policymakers, the public, and the press about urgent issues in science and security policy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Human Cost of Nuclear Weapons
    The human cost Autumn 2015 97 Number 899 Volume of nuclear weapons Volume 97 Number 899 Autumn 2015 Volume 97 Number 899 Autumn 2015 Editorial: A price too high: Rethinking nuclear weapons in light of their human cost Vincent Bernard, Editor-in-Chief After the atomic bomb: Hibakusha tell their stories Masao Tomonaga, Sadao Yamamoto and Yoshiro Yamawaki The view from under the mushroom cloud: The Chugoku Shimbun newspaper and the Hiroshima Peace Media Center Tomomitsu Miyazaki Photo gallery: Ground zero Nagasaki Akitoshi Nakamura Discussion: Seventy years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Reflections on the consequences of nuclear detonation Tadateru Konoé and Peter Maurer Nuclear arsenals: Current developments, trends and capabilities Hans M. Kristensen and Matthew G. McKinzie Pursuing “effective measures” relating to nuclear disarmament: Ways of making a legal obligation a reality Treasa Dunworth The human costs and legal consequences of nuclear weapons under international humanitarian law Louis Maresca and Eleanor Mitchell Chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear events: The humanitarian response framework of the International Committee of the Red Cross Gregor Malich, Robin Coupland, Steve Donnelly and Johnny Nehme Humanitarian debate: Law, policy, action The use of nuclear weapons and human rights The human cost of nuclear weapons Stuart Casey-Maslen The development of the international initiative on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and its effect on the nuclear weapons debate Alexander Kmentt Changing the discourse on nuclear weapons: The humanitarian initiative Elizabeth Minor Protecting humanity from the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons: Reframing the debate towards the humanitarian impact Richard Slade, Robert Tickner and Phoebe Wynn-Pope An African contribution to the nuclear weapons debate Sarah J.
    [Show full text]
  • How South Korea Could Acquire and Deploy Nuclear Weapons
    HOW SOUTH KOREA COULD ACQUIRE AND DEPLOY NUCLEAR WEAPONS Charles D. Ferguson INTRODUCTION: WHY STUDYING OPTIONS FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT FUTHER PROLIFERATION Political leaders and defense planners in the Republic of Korea (ROK), or South Korea, are cognizant that worsening security in Northeast Asia could lead to additional states, including the ROK, to consider and even develop nuclear weapons. In particular, Korean President Park Geun-hye warned in May 2014 that another nuclear bomb test by North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or DPRK) would be “crossing a Rubicon” and would make it “difficult for us to prevent a nuclear domino from occurring in this area.”1 She mentioned that there are some leaders in minority political parties in the ROK discussing options for South Korea’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. But the preference is still strongly for the ROK to rely on extended nuclear deterrence from the United States and for the ROK Armed Forces to improve their conventional military capabilities in cooperation with the United States. Nonetheless, if the Japanese government decides that it must acquire nuclear weapons, which would also be far from Japan’s preference, the ROK would feel pressure to follow Japan. Thus, while South Korea would not be first to acquire these weapons, it would not want to feel vulnerable to a nuclear-armed Japan. Often nonproliferation analysts avert their gaze and do not want to contemplate too deeply how trusted allies such as South Korea or Japan could plausibly develop 1 nuclear arms. However, to prevent an awful event, it is useful to study how the external geopolitical and internal domestic political circumstances could transpire to lead to this event and then to examine the consequences if such an action were to occur.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 Supplementary References
    6 6 SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCES 6 SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCES 1203 6.1 GENERAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS Cosmology glossary. Western Washington Univ. Planetarium, Bellingham, WA; http://www.wwu.edu/depts/skywise/a101_cosmologyglossary.html. Bilder-Konversationslexikon. 4 vols., Brockhaus, Leipzig (1834). CXC Glossary of astrophysical terms. Chandra X-ray Center (CXC), operated Brockhaus Enzyklopädie. 20 vols., Brockhaus, Wiesbaden (1966–1974). for NASA by Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Brockhaus-Konversationslexikon. 16 vols., Brockhaus, Leipzig (1892–1897). MA; http://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/glossaryA.html. Chambers’s encyclopaedia (ed. by M.D. LAW). 15 vols., International Learn- Dictionnaire des sciences naturelles (ed. by F.G. CUVIER). Levrault, Stras- ing Systems Corporation Ltd., London (1963). bourg (1816–1826). Columbia encyclopedia. Columbia University Press, New York (6th edn., Dictionary of medieval Latin from British sources (ed. by R.E. LATHAM and 2001–2005); http://www.bartleby.com/65/. D.R. HOWLETT). Oxford University Press, London; vol. 1 (1975) to vol. 6 Collier’s encyclopedia. 24 vols., Macmillan Education Co, New York (1987). (2003). Der Große Herder. 13 vols., Herder, Freiburg (1932–1935). Dictionary of mining, mineral, and related terms [compiled and edited by the Encyclopaedia Britannica. 29 vols. (11th edn., 1911). LoveToKnow™ free U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Dept. of the Interior]. Am. Geol. Inst., Alex- online Encyclopedia; http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/. andria, VA (1997); http://www.maden.hacettepe.edu.tr/dmmrt/index.html. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 24 vols. (1875–1889), 24 vols. (1929), 24 vols. Dictionary of SDI (ed. by H. WALDMAN). Scholarly Resources Imprint, Wil- (1959); 30 vols. (1974–1984); 32 vols. (1985–2002) mington, DE (1988).
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Arsenals: Current Developments, Trends and Capabilities Hans M
    International Review of the Red Cross (2015), 97 (899), 563–599. The human cost of nuclear weapons doi:10.1017/S1816383116000308 Nuclear arsenals: Current developments, trends and capabilities Hans M. Kristensen and Matthew G. McKinzie Hans M. Kristensen is director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and co-author to the FAS Nuclear Notebook in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the World Nuclear Forces overview in the SIPRI Yearbook. Matthew G. McKinzie directs the Nuclear Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Abstract In this article, the highly destructive potential of global nuclear arsenals is reviewed with respect to nuclear force structures, evolution of nuclear capabilities, modernization programmes and nuclear war planning and operations. Specific nuclear forces data is presented for the United States, the Russian Federation, Great Britain, France, China, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea. Hypothetical, escalatory scenarios for the use of nuclear weapons are presented, including the calculated distribution of radioactive fallout. At more than seventy years since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and twenty-five years since the end of the Cold War, international progress on nuclear arms control and disarmament has now nearly stalled, with the emphasis shifting to modernizing and maintaining large inventories of nuclear weapons indefinitely. This perpetuates a grave risk to human health, civil society and the environment. Keywords: nuclear weapons, nuclear war, nuclear arms control and disarmament. © icrc 2016 563 H. M. Kristensen and M. G. McKinzie Introduction The Russian Federation and the United States have made enormous progress in reducing the sizes of their Cold War nuclear arsenals over the last decades.
    [Show full text]